Uber befuddles judges of Europe’s highest court

LUXEMBOURG — It was impossible to tell if any of the 15 judges presiding over a critical case for the ride-hailing company Uber had ever used the service.

The senior judgesof the European Court of Justicepeppered Uber’s lawyers with questions about how the company works.

“Who does the client pay?” one red-robed judge wondered Tuesday, during proceedings conducted entirely in Spanish. “What happens if he or she cancels?” another asked in a packed courtroom with golden decor. “Do passengers get the address of the driver?” And “can Uber drivers drive for other platforms?

The panel weighing litigation between Spanish taxi firms and Uber must decide whether its technology and business model mean Uber is a tech company, not a transport firm. Uber, worth almost $70 billion on 2 billion rides, describes itself as pure tech firm, which means under European Union law it could be shielded from regulatory clamp-downs. It maintains that it uses technology to help drivers connect with customers — but does not control them.

“Does a passenger pay for a mere tech service? No, he pays because he has traveled from A to B,” said Dontse Ballagué Farré, a lawyer for Asociación Profesional Elite Taxi, which represents Spanish taxi drivers. Uber has paid the fines incurred by its drivers and even paid for their smartphones, she continued. In her view, Uber is a giant taxi firm and ought to be regulated like one. Additional Uber adversaries — including France, Ireland and Spain — also argue that the app is a taxi operator, although it does not own a single taxi.

But many European countries, the European Commission and the authority of the European Free Trade Association agreed with Hélène Stergiou, a lawyer representing the Netherlands, who said: "A distinction has to be made between an intermediation service and a transport service.”

"Here we have separate services that don’t even happen at the same time,” said Eric Gippini Fournier, representing the European Commission.

He struggled to respond to a raft of questions from the judges seeking to pin down when one service began and the other ended.

ThatUber has one service using amateur drivers and another with professionally licensed drivers only complicated matters in court.

One judge wondered if Uber operated like an independent call-center for booking taxis via telephone.

“The difference is the technology,” replied Cani Fernández, the lawyer representing Uber, who at times lost her patience with the basic line of questions.

Spain’s Sampol argued that Uber undermines public confidence in taxis and the ability of public authorities to guarantee public interest like clean air in urban areas. The EU should focus on "protecting consumers” not undermining their confidence, he added.

Fernández pointed out that the application had 6 million users in Europe and rising — "most of whom are returning customers which says a lot about the popularity of the platform."

Estonia’s lawyer agreed: “Society is content with the system and supporting Uber’s general position. It makes people more efficient and more entrepreneurial.”

Depending on the verdict, Airbnb and Booking.com could be lumbered with hotel legislation, warned the Netherlands’ lawyer — and Expedia as an airline, warned Uber.

“This is not the trial of the sharing economy,” said Raphael Coesme, on behalf of France. "We are dealing with the a very specific business case.”

The French, who are defending their own crackdown on Uber, were careful in their condemnation: They would not want to saddle their own tech darling, car-pooling firm BlaBlaCar, with the same onerous regulations as a transport company.

The Netherlands, home to Uber’s European headquarters, didn’t want any onerous regulation at all.

As for Ireland, lawyer Aoife Carroll stressed "there are important difference between the services Uber provides and those of other platforms.”

Like the multiple internet platforms — Google, Twitter and Facebook — that call Ireland home, she could have added.

Related stories on these topics:

Ernest

Uber is a taxi company. Use of apps doesn’t change the fact.
Its core service is transportation, not software.

Posted on 11/29/16 | 9:42 PM CET

Walter S

Taxis undermine public confidence in taxis. Uber has been successful because its users prefer it to taxis. I wonder how many of Uber’s customers in the EU would be against the EU if they knew their favorite ride service was under threat by a bunch of foreign judges who don’t even know what the service is about.

Regulations on liability, insurance, rates etc. exist to protect consumers, employees and employer alike. Why would any responsible company not want to accept some form of regulation? Parents feel safer knowing their teen-age kids are driving home with a fully licensed driver who can be traced. Taxi drivers are comforted to know they have some rights over their employer so that they can not be exploited. Employers like to know they have rights of negligent and irresponsible drivers etc. etc It is not about suggesting that Uber does not offer a valuable service. It does and taxi drivers need to adapt to this – but to try and abscond from any form of responsibility from the way in which they make huge profits is just down right nefarious.

Posted on 11/30/16 | 4:40 PM CET

Walter S

I don’t think I’ve ever felt completely safe in a regular taxi. The drivers are maniacs, don’t speak the local language, are often on their phones, or their cabs are just disgusting. Often three or four of those things at once. I’ve had only one less-than-excellent experience with Uber, but Uber lets you rate your driver, and they do terminate drivers who fall below a certain rating. When you get a regular taxi, you never know what you’re going to get. With Uber, you know the drivers and their cars have been vetted by other passengers.